NACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. SATINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant-appellant has come up in appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below in a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondents claiming maintenance from the appellant-defendant being daughter-in-law and grand children of the defendant with a prayer to create a charge on the property of the defendant-appellant. The plaintiffs further sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants or agents from ousting the plaintiffs from House No. 226, Jujhar Nagar, Patiala illegally and by force and also sought restraint against alienation of the suit property.

(2.) THE suit was filed by Smt. Satinder Kaur, widow of Gurmail Singh son of Nachhattar Singh along with Sugandeep Kaur, minor daughter of plaintiff No. 1 and grand-daughter of appellant and Gursimrandeep Singh, minor son of the plaintiff and grand-son of the defendant-appellant claiming maintenance on the plea that there was nobody to maintain the plaintiffs after the death of Shri Gurmail Singh, except the defendant. It was claimed that as the plaintiffs have no source of income, the defendant-appellant was duty bound to maintain them. It was further claimed that the defendant is owner in possession of the suit property detailed in the head-note of the plaint and that the plaintiffs are residing in the house mentioned in the plaint. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant has deserted them and thereby forced them to depend on the mercy of parents of plaintiff No. 1. It was further claimed that the defendant was a man of bad habits and was adamant to alienate the suit property with the purpose to deprive the plaintiffs of their right of maintenance and further an attempt is being made to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally and forcibly from the house in dispute as mentioned in the plaint. It was averred that the defendant was earning more than Rs. 2 lacs per year and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month was claimed for their maintenance and for education and a prayer for creating a charge on the suit property was also made. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant has already sold his property and was further trying to alienate the suit property as well as the house by entering into negotiations with some persons. According to the plaintiffs, a cause of action has arisen to the plaintiffs.

(3.) ON pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-